The Republic of Cameroon is
located between the Central African and the West African sub regions of the
African continent. Between January 1st 2010 and October 1st 2011, the country
will clock 50 Years of liberation from colonial bondage. On January 1st 1960,
the country began her Independence process when the French-speaking part of it,
east of the River Mungo, was granted Independence by France under the watchful
eyes of the United Nations Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld. This portion of
the country adopted the name “La Répulique du Cameroun”, translated into English
as The Republic of Cameroon, under Alhadji Ahmadou Babatoura Ahidjo as
President. The Independence of the whole territory known today as the Cameroons
took a further step on February 11th 1961, when the English-speaking
part of the former German Kamerun, West of the Mungo, voted in their majority
to acquire Independence by Reunifying with their brothers and sisters from East
of the Mungo.
This was during the February
11th Plebiscite of 1961. This decision was concretised on October 1st
1961. This was the day on which the two parts of the country got reunified, to
look like what the country was during the German Colonial era known as Kamerun.
The two Cameroons thus adopted a new name known as THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
CAMEROON, with Ahidjo as President and J.N.Foncha as Vice-president.
Today is almost half a century since all these events occurred. The issue at
stake is that the country which seemed to be very prosperous shortly after
Independence is today paradoxically found amongst some of the worst countries
of the world in terms of corruption, poverty and the mismanagement of public
funds. This paradox finds an explanation in almost all the basic functional
units and circles of the country’s existence such as Politics, Economy,
Education, Religion, amongst others. This brings to mind the whole idea of the
purpose of this discourse. This work will concentrate on the role of the
various Political Party systems in Cameroon since Independence on the present
situation of the country.
In fact, since independence, Cameroon has been fluctuating between Monopartism
and Multipartism. Between 1961 and 1966, the country operated on Party
Pluralism which ended in 1966 with the formation of the Cameroon National Union
(CNU) by President Ahmadou Ahidjo and his close collaborators. Amongst the
numerous reasons Ahidjo raised in favour of Mono-party politics, some were
valid while others were not. When he plunged the country into this party
system, it later on turned out to be “Presidential Absolutism”. This explains
why Multi-party politics was reintroduced in the 1990s, though at the price of
“bloodshed”. Today Cameroon is standing somewhere between Monopartism and
Multipartism as it will be seen later in this essay. In this kind of situation,
we need to revisit our past so as to adjust in the present and be able to
confront the challenges of the future. In this regard, therefore, this work
will focus on the periods 1960/1961 to 1966, 1966 to 1990, and 1990 to Present
without failing at any available spot to state how the future of the country
should look like.
Multipartism
in Cameroon between 1960/1961 to 1966
When the Federal Republic of
Cameroon got full Independence on October 1st 1961, she was placed
under Ahmadou Ahidjo as President and J.N.Foncha as Vice-President. These two
statesmen had been the brain behind the Federal Constitution for Cameroon which
was adopted at Foumban between the 17th and the 21st of
July 1961. The Constitution had authorised the functioning of Multipartism in
Cameroon at the time. In the State of East Cameroon, which was French-speaking,
there were many Political Parties operating, among which one can name the
following: Union Camerounaise (UC) of Ahidjo, Mouvement d’Action
Nationale Camerounaise (MANC) of Charles Assalé (Premier of East Cameroon),
Parti-Socialiste Camerounaise (PSC) of Charles Okala, Union des Populations du
Cameroun (UPC)—the legal wing led by Theodore Mayi Matip, Democrats Camerounais
(DC) of André-Marie Mbida, Front Nationale Unifié (FNU) formed by Mbida, Okala,
Matip and Bebey-Eyidi in 1962, etc. In the State of West Cameroon, politics was
orchestrated by political parties such as the Kamerun National Democratic Party
(KNDP) of Foncha, the Cameroon People’s National Congress (CPNC) of Dr E. M .L.
Endeley, the Cameroon United Congress (CUC) of Solomon Tandeng Muna, the One
Kamerun (OK) of Ndeh Ntumazah , etc. Although these parties played
politics between 1961 and 1966, Ahidjo had begun as early as September 1960 to
express his desire for a “Grand National Party” in Cameroon. He began a play
with the expressions “Grand National Party” and “Parti Unifié”. In order
to make Cameroonian politicians buy his idea, he took them aback in November
1961 when he changed the first expression in favour of a “Parti Unifié”.
The reasons President Ahidjo and those who supported his One-party idea
advanced were varied. To begin with, there was the feeling by Ahidjo that the
Monopartism was going to foster national unity amongst Cameroonians. This was
because he thought that the various political parties in the country either
operated on tribal or regional tendencies. That his UC, for example, was only
popular in the Northern parts of the country while Foncha’s KNDP was mainly
interested in the affairs of the Bamenda grasslands where it was popular. Thus,
Ahidjo argued that the coming together of all Cameroonians under the canopy of
a single political party will be a visible step towards the promotion of
national unity in the territory. Ahidjo also argued that the one-party scheme
was going to put an end to the so many political infightings that were common
within the different political parties. Between 1963 and1965, the KNDP of
Foncha was shaken by sagas such as the one between Muna and A. N. Jua on the
one hand over the post of the Vice-chairman of the party and that between
Ekah-Nghaky and E. T. Egbe on the other hand over the post of the Secretary
General of the party. Similar to the argument based on national unity, Ahdjo
also insisted that the one-party regime was going to promote a spirit of
patriotism amongst Cameroonians. Another reason was the fact that Ahidjo wanted
to emulate the example of some other newly independent African countries such
as Ghana (with the CPP of Nkrumah) and Tanzania (with the TANU of Julius
Nyerere) which had adopted the one-party system. Also, in the President’s
opinion mono-party politics was going to promote economic growth in the country
through the implementation of a common economic policy void of opposition.
However, it became clear, especially after the introduction of Monopartism
in 1966, that Ahidjo had used it as a means of consolidating his stay in power.
This was because he felt threatened in his position as President by some
influential Cameroonian politicians such as Foncha, Jua, Muna, Assalé, Okala,
etc. He was afraid that some political parties could form a coalition in the
event of any presidential election in the country and will succeed to outdo
him. Thus, with a single political party under his command as the party
chairman, he was going to remain the “natural candidate” of the party in the
event of any election.
Motivated by such factors and/or reasons, Ahidjo embarked on the use of a
variety of strategies to bury Multipartism in Cameroon. He began by playing
over the use of the expressions “Grand National Party” and “Parti Unifié” as
used in September11960 and in November 1961 respectively. Politicians who
opposed the scheme were threatened, intimidated, and arrested such as the “Gang
of Four” in 1962. These four were Mbida, Okala, Matip and Eyidi, who had
addressed a manifesto to Ahidjo in which they strongly rejected the one-party
scheme. In April 1962, Ahidjo and Prime Minister Foncha issued the
Ahidjo-Foncha Communiqué in which they made it known that a “United Front” will
be formed between their two political parties in the House of Assembly. This
convinced the “Gang of Four” who saw the scheme as a fait accompli and, thus,
after their release, they pledged their full support for the scheme. Newspapers
which expressed anti-one party ideas were all banned so as to stop them from
intoxicating Cameroonians who will oppose the project. There was also the
use of persuasion by Ahidjo and other members of the Executive Bureau of the UC.
In this light, Ahidjo paid an official visit to Buea in West Cameroon in 1963.
The main aim of the visit was to hold persuasive talks with leading politicians
such as Endeley and Muna. Endeley’s CPNC supported the idea of the one party
regime and Muna’s CUC did same as soon as it was formed in 1965. It is also of
prime importance here and now to mention the “Train Affair” of 1962. In this
year, Ahidjo had ordered for the arrest and imprisonment of some 30
Cameroonians in Douala who were mainly objectors to the one-party scheme. He
later ordered that they should be transferred from Douala to Yaoundé. Between
Douala and Yaoundé, 25 out of these 30 detainees died mysteriously while on-board
a train. This incident became known as the “Train Affair”. It was clear that
Ahidjo knew how and why the 25 detainees had to lose their lives. Such an
inhuman act strained relations between Cameroon and the Papacy and some other
international bodies. Then, the final straw that broke the camel’s back came in
June 1966 with the organisation of the Yaoundé Meeting by Ahidjo. The meeting
was attended by politicians from the two federated states. There were 8 members
from the UC, 2 from the KNDP, and 1 each from the CPNC and the CUC. There
should be no surprise that only one party came from East Cameroon. In fact,
before 1966, Ahidjo’s political manoeuvres had forced politicians on the
opposition bench in the East Cameroon Houses of Assembly to cross-carpet and
join his UC. After deliberations in the meeting, representatives of the four
political parties in attendance agreed on the formation of a single party in
Cameroon. This decision was followed by the dissolution of their parties.
Muna’s CUC was the first to be dissolved, that is, on August 6th
1966. Foncha’s KNDP followed suit on August 13th, while Ahidjo’s UC
was the third to be dissolved on August 21st 1966. Endeley’s
CPNC was dissolved on August 27th 1966. Meanwhile a committee had
been put in place during the Yaoundé Meeting of June 1966 to draft the status
of the new party that was soon to be created. The committee finalised its work
and handed it over to Ahidjo. Thus, on September 1st 1966,
Cameroonians waved adieu to party pluralism when His Excellency President
Ahidjo announced the birth of a single political party in the country known as
The Cameroon National Union (CNU). This only meant the addition of the French
adjective “Nationale” to Ahidjo’s former Union Camerounaise, thus, baptising it
under its French name as the “Union National Camerounaise” (UNC). In fact,
Ahidjo had successfully absorbed all other parties in the country into his own
party. Consequently, the one-party dream which he had had as early as 1960 was
now a reality.
Monopartism
in the Federal Republic of Cameroon between 1966 and 1990
In persuading Cameroonian
politicians to put all their hands on plough of the one-party project, Ahidjo
had painted a very attractive image of the system. From the strength of the
arguments he raised in its favour, one would have expected the period 1966 to
1990 to be a kind of “Political Paradise” for Cameroonians. But paradoxically,
the era of Monopartism was an era in which all such apparent hopes were shattered
down. In fact, it was an era in which the one party regime lived to disprove
the validity of almost all the reasons for which it had been put in place.
For
instance, far from achieving the much desired national unity, the one party
regime worked in favour of tribalism and nepotism. From 1966 to 1982, Ahidjo
surrounded himself with untouchables consisting of family relations and fiends
all from Northern Cameroon. When Paul Biya took over power in 1982, he too
filled in almost all the government positions with people from the South,
thereby frustrating Cameroonians from the West and other regions of the country
who were kept in the periphery of national life. Therefore national unity and
patriotism which were used as convincing points in Ahidjo’s campaigns for
monopartism remained far-fetched dreams.
Instead of fostering economic development, Monopartism bred socio-economic
crises and/or hardships in the country. This was because it encouraged the
mismanagement of public funds, unemployment, social unrest, lack of
transparency and accountability.
Monopartism was also noted for gross violations of Human Right. For example,
critics of the Biya regime usually described his Human Rights records as being
deplorable. In reaction to this situation, Western Countries often reminded the
regime of its poor human rights records and decided to link all their financial
aid to Cameroon to an improved Human Rights record and good governance.
West Cameroonians lived to regret their loss of the semi-parliamentary
democracy which they had practiced before 1966. In addition, corruption began
eating into the fabrics of the Cameroonian society. After 1982, Cameroon
experienced unprecedented capital flight, corruption, and embezzlement of
public funds from both low and high quarters. There was also over
centralisation of power. When Paul Biya ascended to power in 1982, he preached
the doctrine of “rigour, moralisation, and democratisation”. But as soon as he
assumed power, all these principles became a theory whose practical aspect was
blowing in the wind.
The one party
system of government coupled with the Federal Constitution of October 1961 made
the two heads of states between 1961 and 1990 become dictatorial and imposing.
For instance, most Cameroonians of the former British Southern Cameroons
origins argue rightly that it was the one party regime that gave way to the
introduction of Unitarism in the country in 1972. Ahidjo was the national
chairman of CNU and his voice was always final on any national issue. He
exploited the absolute powers infested on him by the Federal Constitution to
dismiss from his government all West Cameroonians who posed as obstacles to the
project of the Unitary System of Government. Such persons were in favour of
Federalism. In 1968, Augustin Ngom Jua was dismissed from the post of Premier
of West Cameroon in favour of S.T. Muna who was in favour of Unitarism. Two
years later, that is, in 1970, despite constitution prohibition, Ahidjo
dismissed J. N. Foncha as the Vice-president of the Federal Republic of
Cameroon and replaced him with Muna who now held cumulating functions. This was
because of Foncha’s pro-federalism inclinations. Still in that light, it is
important to mention that the use of the “List System” for the election of the
members of the various Assemblies in the country also worked in favour of the
change to Unitarism in 1972. This was a strategy instituted by Ahidjo and
through it he successfully filled in all the Assemblies in the country with
politicians who supported the idea of the Cameroon becoming a unitary state.
The Political Bureau of the CNU also pledged its full support for the Unitary
State. More of Ahidjo’s dictatorship and wickedness got exposed through the way
he intimidated, arrested, imprisoned, and maltreated some of the opponents of
the unitary state. A case in point was the arrest and imprisonment of Albert
Mukong (Author of the novel Prisoner
Without a Crime) because of his opposition to the Unitary system. For fear
of arrest, Ndeh Ntumazah (May his soul rest in perfect peace!) went on
self-exile to England where he died in 2010. In the end, since the Referendum
of May 20th 1972 was organised under such conditions, there was
bound to be no opposition to it. The electorates of the Unitary Constitution in
the Referendum were shown only the shiny side of the coin. In fact, there was
nobody or group of persons to sensitise the electorates on some of the demerits
of Unitarism. Thus, on May 20th 1972, by a vote of 99.9 percent,
both West and East Cameroonians voted to become a Unitary State. The name of
the country changed from “The Federal
Republic of Cameroon” to “The
United Republic of Cameroon”, followed by changes in the country’s
National Flag and Constitution.
On his part, Paul Biya used presidential absolutism embedded in the spirit of
Monopartism to change the name of the country from “The United Republic of
Cameroon” to “The Republic of Cameroon” in 1984. The French-speaking portion of
the former German Kamerun had adopted the name “La République du Cameroun”
translated into English as The Republic of Cameroon at independence on January
1st 1960. Thus, most English-speaking Cameroonians argue rightly
that the change of name was an expression of “assimilation” or “colonisation”
of the former British Southern Cameroons by the former French Cameroon. The
Bill bearing the proposal of the change of name by Biya in January 1984 had
gone through the Assembly without meeting with any opposition. This was because
the country operated under the one-party system and all those who were against
it did not have any legal political platform on which to voice out their
opposition. In the end, the country went home with the name that ignored the
rich historical past of its constituents and this could be blamed largely on
Monopartism and “presidential absolutism” or call it dictatorship. However, no
matter what name the nation bore, there was still a very long future that lied
ahead of her.
From the foregoing paragraphs, one could say that the Federal Republic of
Cameroon which had changed its system of party politics at an infant age of
about 5 or 6 years was not going to maintain the system. In fact, she was going
to be changing political party systems just like a menstruating woman changing
her sanitary pads. Thus, before the last years of the 1980s everything pointed
out that Cameroon was still going to undergo a metamorphosis in the domain of
her regime of party politics. Actually, a change of regime in the future was
going to be unavoidable given that Ahidjo and Biya had championed the one-party
regime with “personality cults” and a greater majority of Cameroonians, both
the young and the old, were now sitting on the “Complaining Bench”.
The Return to
Multipartism in 1990
Multipartism which was re-launched
in Cameroon in 1990 at the expense of bloodshed was a process which had begun a
few years before 1990. Though the general conduct of CPDM militants in the late
1980s vis-à-vis the re-launch of Multipartism contradicted the fact that this
was a process, it will be necessary to recount the countdown to it. One would
not be totally wrong to state that the process of the re-launch of Multiparty
politics in Cameroon began in 1982 as reflected in President Paul Biya‘s
policies of “rigour, moralisation, and democratisation” which formed the bases
of his policy speeches as the new President of The United Republic of Cameroon.
In November 1983, one would not also be completely out of track to mention the
Constitutional amendment which gave room, though in theory, for
multi-candidates in presidential elections. Article VII of the Constitution now
authorised other candidates other than the chairman of the CNU to stand for
presidential elections, though through a number of conditions that no one of
the candidates could ever fulfil. For instance, the candidate had to have at
least Five years Residence in Cameroon, had to provide 500 signatories from
important Cameroonian personalities such as Members of Parliament, Traditional
Chiefs and/or Fons, Governors, Divisional Officers, Municipal Councillors, and
other Members of the Central Committee of the CNU. These 500 signatories were
to be constituted of 50 each from each of the 10 Provinces of the country. In
fact, this constitutional provision could be compared to a situation of giving
one’s fowl corn enclosed in a transparent container. However, one counts this
as a step towards real democracy because such an idea as a whole, though
theoretical, would have been a taboo in the days of Ahido’s CNU. In 1987, a
Multi-candidate list was introduced at the level of Municipal Elections. These
elections were held in November of the same year, that is, 1987. In the 1988
Parliamentary Elections, the “Khaki” and “White” lists were introduced. This
also gave room for political competition, though still within the context of
One-Party Regime. All such gestures served as a clear indication that the
CPDM’s monopoly of political power was going to be shaken in the future. As a
result, between February and March 1990, thousands of CPDM militants and
sympathisers marched throughout the country in protest to the eminent
re-introduction of multiparty politics despite the fact that the county’s
constitution provided for it. Amongst those who marched were retired and/or
sacked government ministers, ministers in government, provincial governors, top
government officials, senior district officers, district officers, mayors, top
military officers, and of course, high ranking officials of the CPDM. Motions
of Support were fired to the Head of State against the reintroduction of
Multipartism. In response to such actions, Paul Biya told his Militants and
supporters of the CPDM on 9th April 1990 that “Je vous ai compri” (I have understood you). He went on to caution
them to be prepared for political competition. The Head of State was acting
under both internal and external pressures. The internal pressures included the
following: Those who wanted to create political parties argued rightly that the
Constitution of Cameroon provided for multipartism; Biya was also blamed for
having failed to concretise his principles of “rigour, moralisation, and
democratisation”; instead of fostering the much desired national unity, the
one-party system had bred nepotism and tribalism in the country; the
socio-economic crises in the country were blamed on the one-party especially by
leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Cameroon; newspapers and radio
programmes also demonstrated the nakedness of Monopartism (for instance, “Le
Messager”, a newspaper published by Pius Njawe, and “Cameroon Calling”, a
National Radio programme run by Anglophone journalists), etc.
The external pressures on their part included the following: The influence of
the collapse of the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbatchev’s policies of “Glasnot”
and “Perestrioka”; the influence of the IMF and the World Bank; the influence
of the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s; the influence of France—Cameroon’s
highest financial donor by then; and the influence of the Harare Declaration of
the Commonwealth of Nations on Democracy and Human Rights, amongst many others.
Meanwhile Barrister
Yondo Black was so courageous that he openly called for the creation of other
political parties in Cameroon and he made an attempt to form one. He was
arrested and detained in Douala. The Bar Association of Cameroon led by Barrister
Bernard Muna (son of S. T. Muna), a baron of the one-party regime, supported
Black’s ambitions. In defence of Black, the Bar Association pointed out that
constitutionally every Cameroonian had the right to form and/or belong to a
political party. At this point, it would appear that the supporters and
sympathisers of the lone CPDM must have regretted why they had forgotten to
amend the Constitution so as to reverse such a clause! However, they must have
embarked on finding out a way of solving this seeming problem, though the
present situation was vibrating and trembling like an earthquake.
The
trembling situation did not come to an end until when another daring
Cameroonian dealt a serious blow to the One-party political regime that had
existed in the country since 1966. This was when Ni John Fru Ndi launched the
Social Democratic Front (SDF) party in Ntarikon, Bamenda (Headquarters of the
thence North West Province) on May 26th 1990. The launch of this
party was an event which can be referred to as “The City Chemist Roundabout
Massacre” given that Six (6) Cameroonian civilians were killed and others
wounded there by the National Forces of Law and Order that President Paul Biya
had dispatched to prevent the party launch from taking place. However,
supporters of the thence one-party regime argue that these six died in the
course of a stampede which occurred within the dispersing crowd. Should it be
so, the next question will be: Who caused the crowd to be dispersing and why,
if not the dispatched forces? Whatever the case was, a goodbye had been waved
to Monopartism and the new-born baby known as Multipartism had received the
baptism of blood. Thus, the long awaited multipartism, though bought at the
price of bloodshed, had come to stay or so.
In the midst of the political turbulence that followed the
May 26th 1990 event, the thence government of the former CPDM
political party authorised the already existing Multipartism. This was when a
Law was signed in December 1990, re-introducing multiparty politics in
Cameroon. Apart from the so many political parties which were created
thereafter as a direct consequence of this law, some other important things
happened in the country. There was the “Operation Ghost Town” organised by opposition
leaders to demonstrate their bitterness in some major cities in the country.
Presidential elections were organised in 1992 and the CPDM won, though the SDF
argued that its victory had been reversed in favour of the former. In 1996, a
new constitution was introduced in Cameroon which distinguished between the
three arms of the government for the first time: the Executive, the
Legislative, and the Judiciary. The constitution also provided for the respect
of Human Rights. It extended the Presidential term of office from 5years to 7
years, RNEWABLE ONCE. From 1996, to present, another problem has been that of
knowing whether truly Monopartism was abolished in the 1990s and whether the
Multipartism that exists in the country is within correct limits.
20 Years
After 1990: Is it Monopartism or Multipartism that operates in Cameroon?
After the re-introduction of party pluralism in Cameroon in 1990, the one
funniest thing on the Cameroonian political landscape is that one cannot for
certain say which political regime is functioning in Cameroon. What really
obtains in Cameroon at the moment is “exaggerated multipartism” and on the
other hand “monoparitism”. If one says that multipartism in Cameroon is
exaggerated, he would not have been faulty at all. Shortly after 1990, the
country counted more than a hundred and fifty political parties. By 2008, there
were 207 political parties in Cameroon. Such a number is alarming and causes a
lot of inconveniencie in the country. In fact, Law No 90/56 of 19th
December 1990 that governs party politics in Cameroon allows for an unlimited
number of political parties in the country. This phenomenon is termed in French
as “Le Multipartisme Integral” and I dare call it “exaggerated multipartism”.
The problem at hand now is that of answering the question of why such an
alarming number of political parties in Cameroon.
One of the
reasons for the existence of so many political parties in Cameroon is the role
of the ruling CPDM political party. In fact, in his essay titled ”Cameroon: Why
so many Political Parties (207)?”, Dibussi Tende holds that
“The CPDM is routinely accused of sponsoring the creation of dummy
political parties whose role is to muddy the political waters, serve as relay
points for the government’s so unpopular position issues of the day, and dilute
the strength and the votes of the opposition”.
Such an assertion is true when one remembers
that it was the MDR (Mouvement pour la Défense de la République) of Dakole
Daissala that teamed up with the CPDM in 1992 to give the latter a majority in
Parliament. Again, a few days to the presidential elections of 2004, there was
a party that surrendered its electorate to the CPDM. Some political analysts
consider so many other parties such as Issa Tchiroma Bakary’s FSNC as a branch
of the CPDM. On his part, Francis Nyamnjoh in “Africa’s Media: Democracy and the
Politics of Belonging” opines that “The Multiplicity of parties [in Cameroon],
most of which had no existence outside the personality of their founders, can
be explained by the government’s interest in dissipating real democracy.” In
this way therefore, the exaggerated multiplicity of parties in Cameroon will
never allow for any real opposition or its victory.
It is also
plausible to argue that the so many political parties in the country have
emerged from the love of money, self-centredness, and the unwillingness to form
a coalition of opposition political parties. For instance, some of the
so-called “mushroom” parties in the country are interested in generating money
from campaign money and filling the pockets of the party leaders with. Some of
the parties are formed due to intra-party wranglings and the unwillingness to
cede certain positions in the party to others and even for a good chunk of
opposition parties to form a coalition or a united front. In this vein, one can
cite the Alliance of Progressive Forces (APF) of Barrister Bernard Muna which
was formed after some power struggle within the SDF. There are many party leaders
in the country who are accused of having huge financial accounts in foreign
banks, a sign that party money is directed into private pockets.
At this point, it is
important to list some of the political parties amongst the 207 that exist in
Cameroon presently, though the number might have increased since 2008. Amongst
the about 207, one can cite the following: the ruling CPDM of President Paul
Biya, the main opposition SDF of Ni John Fru Ndi, the UPC of Augustin Frédéric
Kodock, the CDU of Dr Adamu Ndam Njoya, the UNDP of Maigari Bello Bouba, the
ADD of Garga Harman Adji, the MP of Jean Jacques Ekindi, the APF of Bernard
Muna, the MDR of Dakole Daisala, the FSNC of Issa Tchiroma Bakary, the UDP of
El Hadj Lawan Bako, etc.
On the
other hand, one is not completely out of the rails to say that from 1960 to
present it is Monopartism that is operating in Cameroon. It must be recalled
that the CNU of Ahidjo which was born and baptised on September 1st
1966 was re-baptised as the CPDM during the Fourth CNU Congress that held in
Bamenda from 21st to 24th of March 1985 following the
Abortive Coup d’Etat of April 1984 in Cameroon. For the new-born CPDM, though
its chairman preached “rigour, moralisation, and democratisation” in the early
1980s, its militants protested against the re-launch of Multipartism in the
country before 1990 and it was only after the “Ntarikon Bloody Event” of
May 26th 1990 that Paul Biya signed the law providing for
Multipartism in Cameroon. These were early symptoms that the party did not like
to lose its monopoly of power to some other political party or parties. True to
its thoughts, it has maintained this monopoly of political power for close to
half a century, that is, from 1966 to present.
In order
for this lone ruling party since Independence (remember that the CNU of 1966
was just an “enlargement” of Ahidjo’s former Union Camerounaise), it has
adopted a good number of strategies in order to stay in power including the
sponsoring of the creation of so many other political parties in the country.
As already discussed earlier in this write-up, these numerous parties help
weaken the strength of the opposition as its votes are shared by many parties,
some of which even sell theirs back to the ruling CPDM.
Another strategy is the use of
money and the linking of governmental projects to party politics. For instance,
it is argued, rightly or wrongly, within political circles that the CPDM uses
money to stimulate the writing of “Motions of Support” to its chairman since
2008 or even before. In fact, it looks like it has been planned that before the
2011 Presidential Elections in Cameroon, sub sections of the CPDM all over the
country shall have written at least a motion of support to the national
chairman of the party. There is rarely a news edition over CRTV television or
Radio wherein a motion of support-writing ceremony is not presented. This means
that the party is not planning to vote a new candidate who will represent it
during the 2011 eminent elections. History has proven that Paul Biya is an
“indomitable” candidate for the CPDM and by maintaining him on the top list of
the party means that Cameroon will continue under its monopoly of power for
quite a long time. In fact, for as long as its national chairman lives (and
they can rig elections).
Moreover, some of the opposition parties argue rightly and or wrongly that the
CPDM is using the policy of manipulating and rigging of elections in order to
stay in power. For instance, the SDF argues that its victory was proclaimed in
favour of the CPDM following the 1992 Presidential Elections. Indeed, in spite
of the introduction of transparent ballot boxes in the electoral process in
Cameroon there has never been an election in the country, be it council,
parliamentary or presidential, without the SDF and some other opposition
political parties complaining of fraud on the part of the CPDM. If this is
true, then, it will be truer if we consider that the usual majority of the CPDM
in the House of Assembly has often given the party undue advantage. It was
thanks to this majority position that the CPDM and its national chairman
amended Article VIII. ii (Eight point Two) of the Cameroon Constitution in 2008,
thereby giving Paul Biya the room to contest in the 2011 Polls. The opposition,
especially the SDF, also argues that the Executive Bureau of ELECAM, the new
body in charge of organising elections in the country, is only made up of
barons of the CPDM. It is therefore believed that in this way, ELECAM will
always twist the results of elections in favour of the CPDM. Also, the Head of
State, Paul Biya, has expressed a lot of reluctance to redress the situation in
ELECAM and, thus, such arguments are very near to the truth.
In fact, if
care is not taken the CPDM and its militants will plunge the country back into
Monopartism. When this shall have been done, it will only mean that it has
removed the veil under which it now hides given that the UC of Ahidjo was
transformed into the CNU and eventually into the CPDM of Paul Biya which has
maintained an unbroken chain of “victories” in all elections in the country
since 1960. The question now is: What does the future hold for us? Monopartism
or exaggerated multipartism?
The Way Foreword
This
section of my essay is going to focus on my personal proposals as to how to
maintain a balance vis-à-vis the question that ended the foregoing paragraph.
The only way for Cameroon to avoid “exaggerated” multipartism and or
monopartism is by heeding to advice from within and without. To begin, I believe
that one of the ways will be to limit the number of parties, however not
constitutionally lest it not look like dictatorship, but by burying egoism, the
love for money and forming opposition coalitions. Why not have two political
parties like the USA and Great Britain, the two models of democracy in the
world? I know that some of us will like to talk about “African Democracy”
or “Consensus Democracy” in order to foil my point. If that be the case, then
since we have tried both Monopartism and Multipartism and have seen how and
what they stand for, why can’t we reduce them to about four or six? By so
doing, Cameroon could be setting the pace for other African countries and,
thus, become the model of “African Democracy”.
Again, I
think that Cameroon should emulate the examples of South Africa and Ghana.
Despite all odds, the democracy practised in these two countries, both in terms
of number of political parties and the rotation of power is not very far away
from the Western models of the “government of the people, for the people, and
by the people”. There are no two definitions of democracy. Thus, we are either democratic
or we are autocratic. So, let’s beware!
In addition, it will be quite helpful for Cameroonians to stop certain mentalities
such as relating government projects to party politics. For instance, if
leaders were to be changed because they do not work well, then American leaders
might never have been changed. Democracy preaches the alternation of power and
we all also know that too much of anything is a disease. It is the duty of a
government to cater for her citizens. Thus, after elections, we should bury
party sentiments and talk development. The government is people and not parties.
And so, if the government constructs, say, a road in any part of the country,
that is its duty and the appreciation is due her and not the party or parties
that make up the government.
Equally, it
will not be completely out of place if the Cameroon Constitution is amended so
as to limit the number of political parties in Cameroon to something around
four or six or so in order to avoid the so much financial expenditure of the
government on sponsoring electoral campaigns for the hundreds of parties in
existence. This will also go a long way to facilitate the rotation of power. It
will be making Cameroon play the role of a model of democracy in Africa,
thereby living up to the full expectations and meaning of her name as “Africa
in Miniature”.
At this junction, my whole work is drawing to its end. Before it really ends, I
will like to conclude as follows: Fifty years after Independence, Cameroon has
been bouncing between Monopartism and Multipartism. It has been proven that
Monopartism is quite bad as it gives room for the abuse of Human Rights,
nepotism, dictatorship, etc. Exaggerated multipartism too is not quite good because
it drains and wastes the financial resources of the country and creates
confusion amongst voters when it is time for Elections. In this way, it will be
advisable that the future of Cameroon should be focused on striking a balance.
This implies arriving at, and maintaining, a kind of “limited multipartism”. If
this is done, the country will rise, before the end of the next 50 years and/or
before 2035, to the rank of a “Developed Country” in developing Africa.
REFERENCES
Abraham, Tangwe et al. Cameroon History since 18800: Advance Level
Approach. ----- 2009
Francis, Nyamnjoh. Africa Medias: Democracy and the Politics of
Belonging. South Africa: UNISA Press, 2005.
Joseph, Nfi and Paul Ninjoh. Advance Level Cameroon History: New Approach.
------2008.
Pierre, Sobguong. “Je Connais le Cameroun”. Yaoundé, 2007.
Tende, Dibussi. “Cameroon: Why
so many Political Parties (207)?”----2008 (http://www.dibussi.com/2007/06/cameroon_why_so.html)
Victor, Julius Ngo. History of Cameroon since 1800. Limbe:
Press Book, 1996.
THE END!!!
Kenneth Toah Nsah (Nsah Mala)
Author of:
Chaining Freedom (published collection of
poems)
Mandela (a play)
Incest in Nyonghasum (a play)
Mounting the Stairs of Challenge
(non-fictional essay)
Do You Know Mbesa? (non-fictional documentary of
Mbesa)
Taku (a play)
The Burden of my Daughters (a play)...
nsahmala[at]gmail.com (+237) 7429-1746
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete